get_trades

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination and filtering behavior, which is useful. However, it doesn't state authentication requirements, the response shape (no output schema), or how sorting defaults behave. Adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then concise field list, then example questions. The four example questions add real guidance but slightly pad length. Overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 12-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states return fields and filtering scope, and examples clarify usage. Missing return format details and auth expectations keep it from a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description mentions filtering by account name or ID but adds no syntax, defaults, or behavioral nuances beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('trades'), plus explicit enumeration of returned fields (PnL, direction, instrument, setup tags, emotions, notes). This distinguishes it from get_trade_detail (single trade), get_overview_stats, and get_trade_screenshots among siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The example questions concretely demonstrate when to use this tool (listing, filtering by date/instrument/account/outcome). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus get_trade_detail or statistical siblings, but the examples are strong contextual signals.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.